K.C.G. (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Of
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:4232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 60 of 2025 1 - Mirza Waris Beg S/o Mirza Marhoom Wahid Beg Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Narmada (Wrongly Mentioned As Hanarmada In The Order), Police Station And Tahsil - Gandai, District - K.C.G. (C.G.) 2 - Mirza Inqalab Beg S/o Late Mr. Ibrahim Beg Aged About 34 Years R/o Village - Narmada (Wrongly Mentioned As Hanarmada In The Order), Police Station And Tahsil - Gandai, District - K.C.G. (C.G.) 3 - Sameer Khan S/o Nasir Khan Aged About 23 Years R/o Village - Saloni, Tehsil - Khairagarh, District - K.C.G. (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Gandai, District - K.C.G. (C.G.) ... Non-applicants For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
Vinod Soni have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 9029/2024 vide order dated 02.01.2025 and the case of the present applicants are identical to that of the co-accused and further so far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, the applicants have no previous criminal antecedent and they are in jail since 25.10.2024, charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence I am inclined to allow this bail application. 7. Let applicant, Mirza Waris Beg, Mirza Inqalab Beg and Sameer Khan, involved in Crime No. 267/2024 registered at Police Station Gandai, District- Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1)(B), 34(2), 35, 59(A)(2)of the C.G. Excise Act and Section 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 3(5), 111(2), 238 of the BNS, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i)The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of 5 bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberated or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal
Arguments
: Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.01.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime 2 No. 267/2024 registered at Police Station Gandai, District- Khairagarh- Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 34(1)(B), 34(2), 35, 59(A)(2)of the C.G. Excise Act and Section 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 3(5), 111(2), 238 of the BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.09.2024 in the evening, Assistant Sub-Inspector Chetan Netam of Police Station - Gandai had gone for patrolling with his subordinate staff. He received information from secrete informant that one Mirza Waris resident of Village Narmada has kept large quantity of liquor in his house, which he got sold out through two boys, upon such basis, the police personnel raided and have seized Desi planshan liquor of 180 ml each, totaling 3.060 bulk liters worth Rs. 1530/- and cash Rs. 110/- were seized. When notice was given to the accused under Section 94 of BNS Code for producing necessary documents in this regard, he said that he did not have any documents. Thereafter, search panchnama and rural report were prepared on the spot, seizure proceedings were carried out and sample was taken for liquor testing. After returning to the police station, First Information Report was registered against the accused under crime number 34(1)(b) CG Excise Act. The spot map was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded, during the investigation, the seized liquor was sent to the Excise OfÏce Khairagarh for testing and the test report was obtained, in which the said liquor was said to be fake and of poor quality. Then the accused Jeevan Tandon was taken into custody and a memorandum was registered, in which the said 3 liquor was released by accused Vinod Soni from his mini-truck. After this, Section 35, 59 (A) of Chhattisgarh Excise Act and Section 318 (4), 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) of Indian Penal Code were added. The applicant/accused and other accused were found to be involved in planning to make the said fake liquor and providing the material related to it as well as selling it, so they were arrested and the related material was seized. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that co- accused persons, namely, Jaikaran Gurupanch and Vinod Soni have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 9029/2024 vide order dated 02.01.2025 and the case of the present applicants are identical to that of the co-accused. He also submits that so far as criminal antecedent of the applicants are concerned, the applicants have no previous criminal antecedent and they are languishing in jail since 25.10.2024 and the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants on the ground of parity. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/non-applicant opposes the bail application of the applicants and also endorse the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but could not dispute the said fact that the accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and the present applicants have no criminal antecedent. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicant and the fact that co-accused persons, namely, Jaikaran Gurupanch and